Make sure you are PFD "legal" in your dink!

[Mike G.]

When leaving the marina, I always take my pfd's, oars and number plates from the dinghy so as not to get stolen. Well, on my return last week I put the the number plates on the dink, loaded the oars and realized that I left the PFD's at home.

While heading out to the boat, I stopped at the dock and asked a stranger if I could borrow a PFD for 10 minutes so that I could be "legal" and retrieve some PFDs off of my boat.

Arriving at my boat a Connecticut DEP boat pulled up and asked me to show him my PFD. Good thing I borrowed one! Make sure that you are legal!!! Connecticut is even checking tenders.

Mike

 

[shemandr]

What is a DEP?

 

[Mike G.]

Connecticut DEP

In Connecticut, the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) is one of the controlling authorities over marine laws.

 

[Scott B]

Up here, we are going through a graduated phasing in of Boat Operator licensing. Up until now, we were required ot have the license for the dink but not the bigger boat ( they were targetting the PWC's to start with ). I was pulled over for a safety check in the dink and almost passed, forgot copy of dink registration and no batteries in flashlight, but I had my Boaters card on me and wearing PFD so he let me off with a promise to get them corrected.

 

[Stu Jackson]

What a lot of nonsense

...Up until now, we were required ot have the license for the dink but not the bigger boat ... pulled over for a safety check in the dink and almost

Don't they have anything better to do? I'm gonna have to check, it's probably a "requirement" to carry your (paper) dink registration with you when you're on the dink, but I thought that's what the # plates were for. Enough is enough with this overbearing bureaucratic malarkey.

 

[kendall]

I have been stopped twice in regards to safety checks for PFDs.
First time was pretty funny in a way, we pulled a guy out of the water who had tried swimming accross the lake, which ended up making us short a PFD. we got stopped on the way in to shore, abd before we could explain about the extra passenger, my friend, who is naturally endowed in a way to make Dolly Parton jealous, puffed out her chest and asked the officer "does it really look like I need a PFD?" The officers only response after a short pause was to say "have a nice day" and leave.

Second time ticked me off, My friend and I were walking along the shore fishing, and had a small inflatable 'boat' we were using to hold fishing tackle (one of those small 3 or 4ft boats sold at supermarkets for pool use) I had that tied to my belt loop with a 6ft line and drifting nearby. Officer came up checked our fishing licenses, then proceeded to write us up for not having any PFDs. Neither of us were in the thing, and there was no way either of us could fit in it empty, let alone loaded with both tackle boxes, snacks etc.

I have nothing against laws requiring a PFD, but LEOs should show a little common sense.....

Ken.

 

[MoonSailer]

Tickets mean money!!! Two ways 1.when they write a lot of tickets they collect the fines. 2. when they write a lot of tickets they justify their own existence in that we would all drown today without our big brother watching out for us. We had a cop ruin our lake for us. We were out having a lousey day as there was no wind and it was hot, We had some beer one for my wife and me a couple over several hours. The cop saw the cans and really put my wife through it all. Counting backwards abc's then the breath analysis. All showed that she was sober nothing detected on breath analysis. He was so pissed that he couldn't write a ticket that he made us dump out all our beer. I guess that he felt that the humiliation of working over a grandmother church deacon wasn't enough. We were going to buy a house on that lake. Now we have moved the boat. We actually liked the marine cops and considered them friends until this incident.

 

[Stu Jackson]

...I have nothing against laws requiring a PFD, but LEOs should show a little common sense.....

Ken, good stories, surprised the first officer didn't keep comin' back!

Sometimes LEOs have NO common sense because the laws that are written make even less sense.

But there should be some reasonable sensitivity when it comes to enforcement, and that's where LEOs miss the point because most (not all) LEOs know nothing about boating.

 

[txjim]

In my opinion, this is yet again the local government using the safety card as a revenue source. Like red light cameras and seat belt laws, they take a kernel of truth as justification for profit. Should I have the required PFDs? Yes! Am I a criminal worthy of a lecture and hefty fine if one gets left behind? No. Stupid, maybe.

If they REALLY wanted to promote safety, how about having a supply on board the patrol craft for rent/sale? How about having the loaner stations like I've seen in west coast marinas?

To clarify, I do wear one on my small boat and make sure one is within easy reach when racing on larger crafts. One should not intentionally violate the requirement. Does not make you a criminal, however.

 

[Cpt. Jon]

It does seem hypocritical fine someone for not having enough pfd's onboard because it's so unsafe and then drive off and leave them short handed in such a dangerous situation.

 

[Napa Ed]

Education/Enforcement

Am I a criminal worthy of a lecture and hefty fine if one gets left behind? No. Stupid, maybe.

Yes, you are worthy of a fine. The law clearly states the downside for non-compliance. We all know (or should know; due diligence, right?) how the game is played. When you get caught with your pants down, you get the privilege of paying for your education.

One boater gets the fine, many more get the message. Over time,group behavior shifts toward conformity with the law. Mission accomplished.

 

[MoonSailer]

One boater gets the fine, many more get the message. Over time,group behavior shifts toward conformity with the law. Mission accomplished

So it is not about safety it is about power!!!! I am all for safety but not so thrilled with a powerful government making our lives miserable. Yes the government does have the power to make people comply with anything they choose to make a law governing our behavior. I loved the story about how the British made it against the law for Indian's to make their own sea salt!!! The British had plenty to sell and did not want the competition.http://www.english.emory.edu/Bahri/Dandi.html I am not saving that boating laws are the same as British laws but the purpose of a law should be considered in it's enforcement. Arbitary stupid laws should lead to vociferous protests by the people being forced to obey such arbitary rules .

 

[Napa Ed]

The rules aren't arbitrary. Boater safety laws serve to protect the majority with rather simple requirements.

 

[Stu Jackson]

Mission accomplished Nonsense

...but the purpose of a law should be considered in it's enforcement. Arbitrary stupid laws should lead to vociferous protests by the people being forced to obey such arbitrary rules .

What we need is a boating GHANDI. BoatUS keeps trying, but "they" [the govt] are coming up with so many stupid laws [economy???], that eventually people will start ignoring them, and then start ignoring the useful reasonable ones, too.

As we know, "they" go after boaters because we're "rugged individualists" and they think we can't fight back. Where's David Horowitz when we need him?

 

[Anchor Down]

Moonsailer, if your example, by your own admission, doesn't relate to the topic, why did you try to use it to illustrate your point (that requiring PFDs on dinks is about the exercise of power)?

You really seem to be worked up over this, to the point of using no fewer than four exclamation points to underscore your conclusion. Ed is just observing how law enforcement works by providing a disincentive for risky behavior, and doing so in very clear language that anyone can understand.

You may not like the law, but emotionalism isn't argument. Call me naive, but until I'm persuaded differently, I'll just go on presuming that the motivation here is fewer drowning deaths on inland waterways.

 

[Stu Jackson]

The Larger Point is behavioral change by "implemented stupidity"

...to illustrate your point (that requiring PFDs on dinks is about the exercise of power)?
...is just observing how law enforcement works by providing a disincentive for risky behavior, and doing so in very clear language that anyone can understand.

You may not like the law, but emotionalism isn't argument. Call me naive, but until I'm persuaded differently, I'll just go on presuming that the motivation here is fewer drowning deaths on inland waterways.

My boat is my second home. My dink is like my car. I wear seat belts in my car. Why? Because they were PROVEN to save lives in accidents, many of which were caused by OTHER people.

I don't like behavioral change being implemented for simple revenue enhancements (make more $$ for the government, who, BTW, work for us, right?).

I can run around in my dinghy all summer long and not have an "accident" but am now "exposed" to a BIG fine because when it's so f-ing hot that any kinda PFD would be ridiculous to wear.

This is nonsense. Just like requiring boating classes. The idiots will continue to be idiots and no classes will ever keep them off the water.

Stay outta my second home. You do know the CG can just barge in, right?

Stay outta my dink, too. I can handle it and don't need to waste more of my hard earned $$ to support stupid LEO who put more LEOs on the water who know a lot less than even "newbies" on this board and who are handing out tickets to simply support their own existence.

PS: my son-in-law is an LEO

 

[MoonSailer]

Sailing is an extremely safe activity. More people die by drowning in their bathtub than by falling off a sailboat.

 

[Napa Ed]

I can run around in my dinghy all summer long and not have an "accident" but am now "exposed" to a BIG fine because when it's so f-ing hot that any kinda PFD would be ridiculous to wear.

I can ski all winter and not break my leg. They're called accidents for a reason.

The last time I checked, the law does not state you have to wear unless it's an inflatable.

 

[MoonSailer]

http://www.cdc.gov/injury/Images/LC-Charts/10lc -Unintentional Injury 2006-7_6_09-a.pdf
1273X die from smoking tobacco
12X as many people die in car wrecks.
7.7 X die by accidental poisoning
5.8X by accidental falls
1X die by drowning and most are not adults. There are many ways to die most more common than drowning . Why does big brother feel the need to police boaters so much.

 

[Stu Jackson]

Just my point, Ed

1. I can ski all winter and not break my leg. They're called accidents for a reason.

2. The last time I checked, the law does not state you have to wear unless it's an inflatable.

1. I've skiied for 40 years, first thing other than a bruised shoulder/muscle in "my younger days." Many of you may be aware that I broke my left femur skiing in January. The bone didn't heal, the titanium plate broke on August 14, 7 months almost to the day, and I'm back in the hospital and have to start all over again. It was an accident, no out of control idiot crashed into me, I lost an edge, and bounced down a mogul field, landed on my leg after a series of bounces and <<<CRACK>>> went the femur.

2, That's my "problem" with the law: "...unless it's an inflatable" or other type of dinghy, I presume. That's just bloody nuts, because it doesn't take into account conditions, which make "one size fits all" enforcement stupid and encourages people to ignore the law. More stupid laws, more folks ignoring the stupid laws, so why bother to begin with. Big brother crap.